Bush’s
trip to Europe
produced few surprises and rarely diverted from a script that was prepared
by the White House public relations team. A full week before he left Washington
the media had already decided how the junket would be played out in the
press. The headstrong Bush would be remade into a receptive statesman
willing to engage the allies in open dialogue. Nearly every story in the
print media reiterated the hackneyed expression “fence-mending” to underline
Bush’s eagerness to patch up differences and look for common ground. It was
all bunkum. Bush didn’t budge an inch on any of the key issues. The
extremists who surround him would never allow that to happen. They believe
that negotiation is a sign of weakness and that compromise is the same as
defeat.

The media decided that
the trip would be celebrated as victory of diplomacy regardless of the
outcome. This explains the uniformity of the coverage in both print and
televised media. The articles that appeared in America’s newspapers
could have been composed by the same author. There were only minor
differences. Bush was depicted as a peacemaker, bearing an olive branch to
old friends after a minor spat. The media never really veered from this
basic fairytale.

All in all, it was the
most minutely choreographed tour in the history of the Republic.
Regrettably, very little was actually accomplished. The Transatlantic
Alliance continues to dither on life-support and the savvy Europeans show no
interest in Bush’s high-minded rhetoric. True, there were plenty of smiley
photo-ops and lofty speeches, but behind the back-slapping and handshakes,
the main parties remain as divided as ever. The illusion of a “shared
vision” was only held together by announcing agreements that had been worked
out weeks earlier. The commitment to provide greater security for Russia’s “loose-nukes”
was one such agreement, as was Chirac’s pledge to take a strong stand on
removing Syria’s 1,500 man army from Lebanon. Similarly, Schroeder’s support
for a “non-nuclear” Iran may look like a Bush triumph, but, in fact, Europe
has already done everything possible to dissuade Iran from developing nukes,
including lavish economic incentives and a stepped up inspections regime
that exceeds Iran’s treaty obligations under the NPT (Non Proliferation
Treaty) These deals were already hammered out long before Bush left
Washington. So, what new agreement did the Bush-trek produce?

Nothing. But, the
image of the President as a hard-charging, man of action who negotiates
foreign policy on-the-fly is a fabrication that must be maintained at all
cost. No one seriously believes Bush has any real interest in foreign
policy. He simply shows up on time, recites his lines on cue and moves the
ball down the field for his constituents.

Like Condi Rice, Bush
went to Europe
with ultimatums not friendship. He may have hit a few high-notes with his
moralizing oratory (invoking freedom and democracy ad nauseum) but he really
got nothing in return. The concessions from Euro-allies were negligible at
best. For example, his appeal for more manpower in Iraq
was flatly rejected by the bitterly anti-war Europeans. Still, the press
characterized Bush’s efforts as “encouraging”; emphasizing that all 26 NATO
nations offered to train Iraqi officers (outside of the country) In fact,
this agreement was worked out

long before Bush left
the US, but the
announcement was postponed to create the impression of solidarity.
Unfortunately, the officer training does nothing to share the burden of the
occupation in terms of expense or loss of life.

The Subtext of the
Euro trip

Typically, the public
has only a passing interest in presidential excursions. The difference here
is the growing concern among many people that the administration is planning
an attack on
Iran. This has piqued curiosity in current affairs. People who would
otherwise ignore the activities of glad-handing politicians are now trying
to decipher the hieroglyphics of diplomatic activity. Regrettably, Bush’s
words gave no clue of his future intentions.

Bush’s comments were
carefully worded to create the impression that Europe
and the US
are unified on Iran. This doesn’t accurately reflect the nuanced position of
either the EU or Russia, but it does succeed in linking Bush’s “get-tough”
policies with the more moderate approach of the Europeans. This is clearly
what the Bush advisors had in mind. By connecting Bush to the Allies, Bush’s
waning support at home is bound to increase. This was probably the
underlying purpose of the trip. Bush had no intention of candidly
negotiating with his European partners. Why would he? The Bush team already
knows exactly what they want, and they don’t need timorous foreigners to
challenge their plans. The trip had nothing to do with changing hearts and
minds. It was designed to bolster support for the Chief Executive by giving
him the opportunity to look Presidential, hobnobbing with other
heads-of-state. Without polling data, it’s impossible to know if this
strategy succeeded, but there’s plenty to suggest that it didn’t. After all,
we’ve never had a President who was so unpopular that he could not appear in
public throughout greater Western Europe. Both Karl Rove and the corporate
media are undoubtedly hoping that no one noticed.

On the key issue of
Iran, Bush’s
comments were intentionally elusive. In Mainz,
he said that a “US attack on Iran is ridiculous”, but he quickly changed
directions adding, “All options are still on the table”; an ominous
rejoinder that has only deepened suspicions of Washington’s plans.

It’s impossible to
know with absolute certainty, but it’s inconceivable that they’d allow the
opportunity to pass without confronting Bush on an issue so basic to their
collective security. The disaster in Iraq has put enormous
pressure on Europe to do whatever it can to make sure that Iran
doesn’t meet a similar fate. A disruption in the flow of oil from the region
would be catastrophic for Europe. Iran is essential for Europe’s continued
economic vitality as well as a valued, strategic ally for Russia. An attack
on Iran would be a direct assault on all the countries which depend on its
resources.

Winding Down

As Bush’s trip was
concluding on Thursday US officials were
circulating a position paper to the governing members of the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency). The document indicates that the
administration will give the “European allies only until June to cajole
Tehran before Washington seeks UN sanctions.” (Reuters) There’s
little doubt that the issuance of the paper was meant to coincide with the
winding down of Bush’s trip. The Administration has successfully concluded
its public relations coup, so now it’s back to the business of running the
world. The EU has been put on notice; it has 4 months until Washington
begins to mobilize for its next confrontation. The stakes are simply too
high to sit back and wait for the bombs to start dropping.